Originally Posted by Rocky Mountain Yeti View Post
Again, you frame the argument in a narrow way, ignoring all other elements of the discussion. For me the question centers on when a life becomes a life. At the moment it does, it's not just 'herself" and it's not just about what she's doing "with herself." So it's not just about women's rights, it's about human rights... depending on whether or not you believe a fetus is a human. I'm not taking a position here, since I honestly don't know. But I do know that trying to frame the argument as just about women's rights and ignoring the question of whether or not a fetus is a human does a disservice to the discussion. Moreover. given that there are a good many women who are pro-life, calling it as strictly an attack on women's rights is rather narrow minded.
Now, if you firmly believe that it's not human until after birth, then I understand your position and I'm not going to argue against it or try to change your mind... just as I wouldn't try to argue against a pro-life advocate who honestly believes that life begins at conception or even a more moderate person who draws the line somewhere along the way between conception and birth. I will not openly object to ether position. What I do object to is the prejudicial blanket condemnation of all pro-lifers as people motivated by a desire to deny rights to women when it is clear that most take their position because they believe abortion is murder... agree or not with that belief, that doesn't give you or anyone else the right to label them all as having a completely different and heinous motivation. Just as I don't put a blanket label on pro-choice people as nothing more than a bunch of sexually immoral tramps who murder babies purely out of convenience. Pro lifers who honestly want to save lives rightfully reject your blind blanket assertion of their motivation just as you would reject an extremists view of yours.
I understand the tendency to do so, because if you are able to pin a heinous motivation on your adversary, it makes it easy to demonize them and therefore discredit them without an honest debate. Both sides do it, especially in the abortion debate.
You're doing it here.
OK, fair criticism.
My position is based on people like @Diana7
saying "abortion is killing babies" when it's clearly not that. There is no "post-birth abortions" and I'm not talking about late-term abortions, and I don't think anybody else is, either.
What I think "pro choice" means is that it's the woman's right to choose. That's it, it's her choice. Not that I agree with that choice, or that I disagree with it. It's her freedom to choose.
I think some - maybe nobody here although I doubt it - take "pro choice" to mean "abortions are good and we need more of them." When I don't think that's what it means at all, and is only intended on polarizing the debate. Just like gruesome signs we see on billboards, or @Diana7
saying horrible things about being happy about killing babies to a guy that did no such thing.
I also think that to many "pro life" is a lie in that it's anti-pro choice. If that's where you stand, then say that you don't think women get to choose. And that's kinda what happens when we throw up artificial barriers to abortion, defund access to safe abortions, or put up those stupid billboards - it becomes detrimental to a woman's right to choose.
There's also this little tidbit that I first learned from Freakonomics, detailed in the following paper: http://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levi...yCrime2004.pdf
Essentially, it posits that a substantial portion for the decrease in violent crime in the '90s is Roe vs Wade and legalized abortion - essentially, that there's less unwanted children that are now teens/adults committing crime.
Interestingly, there's an interesting effect noted where nations that legalize abortion... actually have less abortions: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-shee...tion-worldwide
. So if you want to have less abortions, the rational thing to do seems to be to keep them legalized and easily accessible.
Additionally, taking away the freedom of choice not only increases the number of abortions, it makes them far less safe to have done, resulting in long term damage or death to the women seeking them.
On top of that, women having access to contraceptives and abortion has been key to gender equality and allowing women to control their own destiny and sexual fulfillment.
I also very much scratch my head at the renewed debate around legalized abortion in the US, and wonder if in the broader context it's more about conservatism's need to return to 50's style mentality - including women's right to personhood and control over their own bodies.
So that's where I'm at. I think "pro-life" needs to decide if it's actually pro-life - which means they should support legalized abortions - or it it's anti-choice, which is something totally different and icky.
Where I think the transition is between "a cluster of cells" and a "person" is when it's reasonable to think sentience/consciousness/awareness has occurred. That's where it is for me personally.